Thoughts of rift against 3d vision...

[Sc00p007]

Hi,

I was just wondering what peoples with a good opinion of vr thought about 3d vision?
I loved 3d vision. Rise of the tomb raider is just amazing compared to the 2d version. For me, graphically, I would prefer last years game engines in steroescopic over todays best 4k 2d graphics.
So my point is, most people would rather spend on a new 200-300+ gpu to play todays games in 2d. Whereas, if I had too. I would choose to keep the older gfx card and then invest in 3d vision.

It was looking rosie for a year or two. But today, support is non existent. It blows my mind how we are still 2d gaming, when 3d vision was out about 10yrs ago.

So, im hoping vr doesn't go the same way... I am finding some of my pc friends are almost avoiding trying oculus touch out. Same feeling I got from 3d vision.

 

[NeverWinter]

3D vision I just did not enjoy, it felt almost pointless to me for games and film.

However, I loved the short time I spent with VR so much I purchased a Vive which should arrive tomorrow. I think for me it was the immersion, the feeling of like I could actually be there.

 

[RoyMi6]

I found 3D vision a waste of time.

I'll even admit I've used my 3D TV twice. Being generous I've watch 3D stuff "at home" 3 times if you include the once we used my mates 3D projector (he hates 3D himself, projector came with it so had to give it a try)

My Vive and Rift on the other hand get used daily and I'm currently suffering withdrawal symptoms staying at my partners parents over the Christmas break

 

[lokiss]

3D vision was around circa 20 years ago. Many times I've said that the original Halflife in stereo 3D was one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had.

The 3D replays in games like fifa and madden had much the same effect in wow'ing me back then. Here and the now, id rather they march on with full VR, it's just better in every way.

I know exactly where you're coming from though... the blackmesa complex and the HL engine was such a perfect fit for the tech.

 

[darwin]

I was a huge fan of 3D vision but to state the obvious it was appealing to a niche market. For racing sims like AC, Automobilista, Iracing etc the effect was just superb, depth perception was great for judging apexes. I sold my asus rog monitor and went ultra wide, but still miss the immersion of 3D. I have a rift but it doesn't really do it for me in sim racing, comfort is a factor and for I like to see the led readouts etc from my racing kit that I shelled out a lot of money for!

 

[Sc00p007]

3d vision on a tv isnt so good because it is only 720p, also movies and tv, i agree weren't that great in 3d.
I prefer the vr. However, the difference between them for me is: 3d vision in high res i actually think that the game is like a real life doll house. It looks so good i think i should be able to pick them up.
Vr doesnt give me the same feeling of real objects in the room. However, what i do get that i dont get from 3d vision is presence of being somewhere else.

I think my main concern is that VR will go the way of 3dtv etc. The cost of entry is much higher, although the overal package is also much better than 3d vision.
Now all i dream of is a VR headset with the sharpness of 3d vision at 4k (16k maybe?). Then i will get both effects and look into buying a drip to feed myself.

 

[Slam]

I found 3D vision a waste of time.

I'll even admit I've used my 3D TV twice. Being generous I've watch 3D stuff "at home" 3 times if you include the once we used my mates 3D projector (he hates 3D himself, projector came with it so had to give it a try)

My Vive and Rift on the other hand get used daily and I'm currently suffering withdrawal symptoms staying at my partners parents over the Christmas break

Just wondering, what draws you bqck each day?
I was so near to getting a Vive in the sale but just hesitated because I didn't think there was the content to keep me coming back.

 

[djkav]

Resolution and Fresnel lenses are the big things keeping me away from VR. I'll wait till the tech gets better.

 

[danoliver1]

Resolution and Fresnel lenses are the big things keeping me away from VR. I'll wait till the tech gets better.

Both of which are totally forgotten when you actually play a game rather than obsessing on the tech side of things.

 

[David230]

Both of which are totally forgotten when you actually play a game rather than obsessing on the tech side of things.

This.

I have to admit to being a graphics whore and before the rift would be gaming on a 4k monitor at max settings. I went into vr knowing the resolution would be low and half expected the experience to suffer because of it, but I have to say the way you get drawn into vr makes things like light rays and resolution compromises something I am more than willing to put up with.

I just set up my race wheel and got stuck in with project cars and a 20 grid line up at donny in clio cup cars then moved onto rocket bunny GT86's. That blows anything I do on my 4k monitor out of the water.

I find if I spend more than 20mins in a vr game and start to feel immersed completely I have some crazy moments.. Nearly fell off my chair trying to avoid a collision in my globetrotter lorry leaving a motorway in ets2..

I have used supersampling to improve the resolution which I can get away with in most games but for the reasons above I dont always find it necessary to use..

 

[DRSEire]

Tried it for 10mins and never tried again.

 

[Sc00p007]

Tried it for 10mins and never tried again.

What did you try out?
I would recommend atleast an hour by yourself, with a selection of different medium. I am with the poster above.
I game on 4k oled and so the resolution certainly was an eyesore and the first thing I noticed. But after my first hour using it without distraction, I quickly overcome it. For gaming, this blows my 4k out the water.
First time ever, I am inside the game. However, i have loved gaming when graphics were a lot worse than vr res. Yes would be nice for higher res, but its all about immersion and gameplay for me and this still amazes me 4 months on.

 

[Stiffy B]

Indeed it can be similar to the uncanny valley. Devs may not need to completely emulate the world but may convince your instincts with lightning effects for example to extend immersion rather than just keeping making supertextures and building up numbers of polygons. Indie games, go.

 

[jjgreenwood]

I've had 3d vision and the rift and agree 3d vision is far superior for my enjoyment. I am quite old school in my game choices though and pretty lazy. I don't think anyone can seriously claim current vr is the finished article though and it's easy to understand why the current tech can't give the experience people want. It's simply not convincing enough.

 

[sunshinewelly]

I've had 3d vision and the rift and agree 3d vision is far superior for my enjoyment. I am quite old school in my game choices though and pretty lazy. I don't think anyone can seriously claim current vr is the finished article though and it's easy to understand why the current tech can't give the experience people want. It's simply not convincing enough.

thats the most ridiculous thing i have heard. they do not compare in the slightest. let me tell you something - standing on a cliff in vr - you are there - so much so that of the 10 or so people i have had try that demo only one person could walk forward off the cliff. (the lab vr demo)

 

[danoliver1]

I've had 3d vision and the rift and agree 3d vision is far superior for my enjoyment. I am quite old school in my game choices though and pretty lazy. I don't think anyone can seriously claim current vr is the finished article though and it's easy to understand why the current tech can't give the experience people want. It's simply not convincing enough.

Lol. Should have gone to spec savers.

 

[Firefox35]

I've had 3d vision and the rift and agree 3d vision is far superior for my enjoyment. I am quite old school in my game choices though and pretty lazy. I don't think anyone can seriously claim current vr is the finished article though and it's easy to understand why the current tech can't give the experience people want. It's simply not convincing enough.

Are you for real?

If you can seriously claim 3d vision is better than VR then I will seriously claim VR is the finished article LOL

 

[bimbleuk]

As we all know everyone's different and both VR & 3D Vision, require some getting used to and both gave me hours of entertainment when they worked.

Good example was Skyrim which I played for many hours with 3D Vision though it required 3rd party driver tweaks to actually work correctly. I still remember my first time entering a tomb and realising how good the sense of depth was looking down a tunnel and being able to judge the distance better when using a bow.

On the flip side trying to force Skyrim to work with the Vivie was a futile effort and ultimately felt forced and unreal.

Native games on the Vive though which use immersion (The rift's getting there!) have far superior game play ultimately but yeah I'm now also waiting for VR 2.0 so I can also run more non-native titles or other forms of media without the SDE and limited resolution constantly nagging at me.

 

[Sc00p007]

In my opinion, overall Oculus touch is better than the 3d vision.
But I remember gaming 3d vision on a small monitor. The objects looked so real. It looked like I should be able to pick them up from the monitor. So in my excitement, I picked up a dlp projector. This only allowed 720p, but it was a 100"+ screen.
Immediately, it felt more immersive because of the size. But now the objects were nowhere near as convincing. I still had my depth perception, and it still looked really amazing. But it 100% lost the real objects in the monitor look. So I was torn between 100" 720 for immersion, or 22" 1080 for how real objects looked.
This is how I feel about the oculus atm.
However, my point in this thread isnt which one is better.
My point of view as a gamer, is both techs are awesome. However, being awesome doesn't mean it will succeed. 3d vision being my obvious choice.
Yes neither tech is perfect. But, my friends are pc gamers too. Many will upgrade from 780ti to 1080. They will have 32gb of fast ddr4 and a Broadwell or skylake cpu. They are happy with the amount of money this costs (as I am too).
Now instead of 1440 medium/high, they can game 1440 ultra.
That ddr4 that cost 200+ netted them 3-4 fps. Maybe 2-3% fps gain. Same with the cpu, 300 upgraded from Sandybridge. Another 10-20% gain. Sold 780ti around 100, pick up 650 1080 gtx.
Now, the same people tell me 3d vision and vr are not worth it. Ripoff, tech isnt ready yet.
I see there is a nice little jump in gfx with their 780ti to 1080 upgrade. But nothing in comparison to the gfx jump that 3d gives.
I know its only my opinion and everyone is different, but it blows my mind the difference between rise of the tombraider on high in 1080 3d, compared to 4k ultra 2d. The 3d is far better.
But it came and died. Whilst the gpu has gone up in price. When I first had 3d vision. It was roughly 500 for a full fat gpu. Now its 650 for a cut down version because now 650 is 2nd maybe 3Rd tier gpu.
As some people even seemed reluctant to try out the techs. Maybe, because they watched a 3d movie in the imax and thought this would be similar to 3dv (which definitely isn't the case). Or maybe, the gpu addiction is so strong, that it is out of the question not to have the latest. So now the pocket is empty, there is a strong feeling to avoid another gaming addiction that will cost money too

When I think back to trying to get some friends onboard the 3dv wagon, part of my sell was that 2/3 the cost is for the 120hz monitor. Nobody had them then. But, even the 120hz monitor was being resisted as not needed as 60 is great already.
Today they are hugely popular, and the same friends would never give up their rather expensive 144hz monitors.

Anyways, after that wall of text. In conclusion.... Instead of spending so much on 16gb more ddr4 upgrading 780ti to 1080gtx and changing from sandybridge to skylake. Why not keep the money and get the 3d. Enjoy the biggest gfx jump in your gaming since 2d Mario went 64.
I know if given the choice of vr on a last gen pc, or 2d on the latest and greatest. Considering price being comparable. Id be on the vr 100000%

 

[melmac]

3D vision is nothing like VR though. It didn't take off because it had too many drawbacks and never completely made you feel like you were actually in the game. I have had more "wow" moments in a couple of days of VR than I have had in the years that I tried 3D.

And sometimes I wonder, for the people that say 3D is better than VR because of the picture quality, have they actually tried VR at all?

Not once when using 3D vision have I ever felt like I was actually there. Even with the poor graphics, VR has made me lose myself completely in game. Even though I am wearing a big, warm headset and holding two controllers, I become so immersed in the VR world that I don't even notice them anymore.

Never once in 3D have I tried to jump out of way of objects coming at me.

Never in 3D have I tried to put a table tennis bat down on a table that doesn't exist and then two minutes later fall down, nearly breaking my face off a wall, by trying to lean on that non existing table to reach a shot.

And Never once in 3D have I stood on a tall cliff or high building and worry about falling off!!

For me 3D wasn't awesome. It was just a gimmick to make games/movies look a little better. It never achieved what it was trying to do, and that was to make you believe you were there. And 3D never really caught on because of this. Most people are watching a 3D movie or playing a 3D game are like "meh"

My family's reaction to 3D and VR is what sums it up for me. I demoed 3D movies and games and they were like "oh" and "ah" but not once has anyone asked to watch a 3D movie or play a 3D game . Now, compare that to VR, it's been in use nearly every weekend since I bought it. The family can't get enough. And the arrival of the controllers has made it even more popular.

If my family's reaction is anything to go by then VR is going to do really well.